New Poll — Education Level of ECW Readers

I have had some requests from readers interested in learning more about the education levels of those who are following the E-Cat story, and so I have put up a new poll on the right side of the site. I am not entirely sure what it will tell us, since I don’t see the number of degrees one has as necessarily indicative of one’s education level. I always think you can get a good education these days for free by studying the wealth of material that’s available on the web — so long as you are discriminating and use sound judgment.

I am an engineer, nuclear physicist. I have 25 years experience with operation of conventional nuclear power plants. I would like to start producing nuclear energy without radioactive waste. I realize what it means.

jpelsor

A.B. Psychology, MArch, MBA. I enjoy the (mostly) intelligent trade of ideas in the commentary as we wrestle with monetary policy, dark matter, global warming and a basket full of theories about how understanding and potentially exploiting LENR will help science and civilization evolve.

Ian Alden

Chartered Engineer, I have been following LENR for the last couple of yrs or so. Engineers have always made the major break throughs, which science has had to catch up with, once they can no longer hold onto their pet theory, because it is now beyond reasonable doubt that they are wrong. There are some classic example in history of this. Steam railway trains can not carry people faster than a galloping horse without them dying, is one I really like. That took 4 years after the Rainhill trails to finally be discredited. Another was the physicist that claimed man could not fly – published after the Wright Bros. first flight. Finally to prove how physics can get it well wrong they have only in recent times worked out how a Bee flys, yet we all knew that bees must fly because we have honey, but theoretically they couldn’t, to so with such a small wing surface area and the weight carried. I look forwards to the next great turn around, in the world of Science.
—
An Engineering – one who creates Art by the application of Science.

PS why is LENR not in the main stream – the money people don’t want it there yet, no point in bursting the oil bubble yet. They will do what ever it takes to discredit it, till they are assured of making a killing – see Canal Mania and Railway mania in the UK for previous examples in history of the same behaviour.

NJT

BS in Biology,
Worked in and then managed several laboratories for 28 years. Retired in 1990 and started my own computer consulting business which I still do a bit of. Been very interested and following this cold fusion (LENR) anomaly since P & F announced in 1989. Great web blog site – thanks for all your hard work admin…

Job001

Distrust of the PTB warrants not revealing my advanced degrees or identity. The non trustworthy behavior of the PTB has been the issue all along.
Legitimate distrust results from the behavior of extreme wealth. Extreme wealth has used up the legitimate productivity investment opportunities that were good for society and has gone far beyond into social extraction.
Social extraction includes non-productive law corruption, green mail, protection rackets, bailouts, OPM miss use, loopholes, extortion and corruption, sale of phony moneys and inflation thereof, built in obsolescence, spare part and maintenance extraction, monopoly and cartel excess profits via IP, artificial scarcity, supply restriction, and regulation.
In short, these are the opposite of productivity.
LENR is not an investable option for extreme wealth, it could provide high productivity rather than high extraction. Thus we observe it’s routine opposition with every dirty trick possible including career sabotage, science and patent denial, and FUD campaigns. Not to be negative but real.
It’s hard to believe but simply so:
Capitalism has degraded from free market commodity abundance to cartel extraction scarcity, so be careful.

Martin Chitwood

My education: Doctorate in Law and a Master of Arts

Alexvs

Doctorate in Physics. In case of permanent ‘moderation’ get at least my greetings Mr. Acland.

http://www.e-catworld.com admin

Hi Alex! Hope you are doing well.

Alexvs

I am. Thank you.

Claes

Ph. D in complex systems. Interested since I would not be surprised if physics had entirely missed some sort of mesoscopic dynamics effect. They have a perfect grip on the microlevel of physics – that’s just silly to dispute – but their ability to really rule out effects on higher levels of organization could be much weaker than they think. This is just a hunch I should add.

Hadamhiram

I agree. A great variety of fascinating phenomena are a result of emergent properties, from the invisibility of certain meta materials to the strength and flexibility of ordinary cloth – these things are exceedingly difficult if not impossible to predict from micro principles alone.

My hunch is that what is normally a statistically random process – particle decay – will prove to be not at all random at a fundamental level, but instead a direct function of conditions at the molecular level and below. In normal matter the conditions are not sufficiently structured for decay to occur in any focused way, and so the result of octillions of unstructured atoms vibrating away appears indistinguishable from probabilistic noise. But with the right structure things change dramatically. Static electrical charge of macroscopic objects is perhaps a useful analogy; look what we are able to achieve with electricity given sufficiently engineered structures.

But why does every anomaly have to be ‘explained’ by some new particle? IMHO it might be more profitable to look at field effects and/or the fundamental nature of ‘space’ for many answers.

Gordon Docherty

Also, a new insight can put a whole new spin (forgive the pun) to received knowledge. I am thinking particularly here of the Primer Fields work of David LaPoint – and his truly amazing insight into the structure of electro-magnetic fields around all matter, something that does away with the need for “Dark Matter”, “Dark Energy” and even Black Holes. Combined with an increasing understanding of vortices and vortex mathematics (starting with the work of pioneers such as Victor Schauberger), a “re-discovery” of the work done by James Clerk Maxwell on electro-magnetic fields (before it was “adjusted” by first Heaviside and then Lorentz to eliminate open systems), and the recognition that confined geometries play a pivotal role in the operation of the universe, and we see that the leverage gained by joining minds from different disciplines together far outweighs the supposed advantages of keeping studies siloed. Indeed, there is a strong case to put that silos are more a highly efficient mechanism by which to propagate errors without allowing them to be challenged, leading to evolutionary blind canyons, rather than hot-beds of innovation, and that a cross-fertilization approach to ideas is far superior in the long run to a purely siloed one. In short, forums like this can provide a fertile breeding ground for widely and quickly disseminating information, triggering new ideas and lines of enquiry that lead to yet more information to be shared. So, for all, involved, keep up the good work!

But Peter you agree it could be both? Quasi particles are personifications of field effects. In fact if you study physics long enough in the mathematics you start to question if everything is a particle or a quasiparticle.

LCD

I should say PhD in Computational Physics as it applies to condensed matter physics.

Chris I

I quite agree actually and I think many physicists are aware of it, but most just aren’t considering of the conjecture that the interaction involves a good bit of metal lattice. The real trouble in the controversy is that nuclear and particle physics are so darn accustomed to thinking of phenomenology that involves one or two initial bodies (decay or collision, respectively). And yet some of the phenomenology isn’t quite that simple, after all…

Cliff

Got my degree in BS in Computer Information Systems.

pg

+7

Gerrit

BS in information pedantics ?

Paul Bennett

This is a bit off-topic for this post, but I was reading the news today and found an article on Iran’s nuclear aspirations. I recall seeing several posts and comments regarding the possibility that LENR might be made into a weapon of some sort. It struck me that if LENR becomes the predominant source of energy in the near future, there will be no justifiable reason for countries like Iran to invest in uranium enrichment technology. The only possible use for such activity once LENR becomes the normal way of generating energy will be for nuclear weapons. IMO this will make it significantly more difficult for countries to cross the nuclear threshold. I believe it will be quite difficult to make an effective weapon form LENR. So I conclude that LENR will have a positive impact on world arms proliferation. Am I being totally too optimistic?

Kim

You are not off topic and not too
optimistic.

The new fire will give people breathing
room and a lot less friction in the world
as time goes on.

Fission of the atom and its use will be
seen for what it was.

Respect
Kim

http://www.Revolution-Green.com Ken

I believe you have a good point…But don’t underestimate man’s tendency to fight each other. Rogue Nations like Iran and North Korea will always try and develop means of mass destruction in order to get recognized.

Hmm not sure Paul. But if I gave you a battery that lasted 6 months without charging and had enough energy/power to power your car or a yacht, how many things could you weaponize?

Ryan

I think I’d try to weaponize my toaster. Think of it, an automatic toast projector. Create a jam thrower and it would be breakfastgeddon for everyone.

LCD

lol nice

paul bennett

I guess large quantities of energy can be made into a weapon somehow, but it seems that the rate at which energy is released in LENR is not enough to conveniently produce a really large explosion. So unless you can store the energy, serious weapons seem problematic. However, even if it can be made into a weapon, it should be several years away. In the mean time as soon as LENR is recognized as the future of domestic power, any enrichment research can only be for military purposes.

LCD

how long does it take to separate H2O, compress it, and then let it recombine (boom)

Chris I

I had often thought of your point but there is another excuse that Iran raises: radiotherapy.

Still, an energy source as claimed, by dramatically reducing demand for fossil fuels, would contribute to defusing the interests that have built up the global level political strategies which came to cause these so-called rogue nations. Then other commodities would remain important in markets, rogue nations could likely crop up elsewhere…

Peterem

BBA Finance. Drawn into E-cat World because of the scintillating back and forth whilst following lenr saga. This group is amazing. Dropped out of the business world, started working at a high school trying to think and stay young.

I believe what my senses tell me,
but if I don’t know, and that is often,
it is incumbant on me to say so.
Enjoy ALL of the intelligent discussion here,
and on Next Big Future, New Energy and Fuel, Gas 2.0 etc.

In “roseland67 world”, jury is out on Rossi,
I’m just not smart enough to figure it out.

http://www.Revolution-Green.com Ken

I have the same MO….degree is in progress Applied Associates of Science. Background is 12 years in electrical engineering and RF systems optimization. I have a son on the way (due in 3 weeks).

I follow what my gut tells me and sometimes it tells me wrong. I admit when it steers me wrong and tend to be optimistic about Rossi.

I appreciate Frank’s contribution to spreading knowledge and the intelligent atmosphere of this site. Keep up the good coverage and stay objective.

Ken
(http:/www.Revolution-Green.com)

Barry

Took art classes at a local college, self taught musician and wrote a book because I’m attracted to work that pays less than 50 cents an hour.

Miles

AMAZING Technological Claims being Made in the below Link. LENR Mentioned too.

Goldes tooting his own horn. When he comes out with something after God knows how many years then I’ll listen. Similarly, Rossi and DGT have some time before they fall into that category as well.

Engineer

Masters in civil engineering emphasis on computational fluid dynamics. After 35 years I just like to design stuff that gets built. Free energy will make my job a joy. Things will get to so much easier. Not simpler but easier. Imagine a mine with a waste stream of bad stuff. With free energy we just boil the water away and landfill the solids.

The result is as the regulators want is “No discharge into the environment”

One of many things that will make life better.

Richard

Made it half way through my BFA in theater. Traveled and worked a few years and started an accounting designation. Didn’t quite finish that either. Worked in insurance and completed an associate designation, Yay me! Finally, did a four year apprenticeship to become an electrician. After one year as a journeyman I bought a bed and breakfast/restaurant. Looking forward to the rest of the adventure.

Fibber McGourlick

BSc E.E.

AstralProjectee

I am surprised that there are so many educated people here. I thought most of us would have had finished HS and maybe had some college, but I was way off. I was one of the ones that asked Frank to do this poll too. I am proud then to only have finished HS, and be one of the few here to post, and trust in Rossi to give him a full chance to prove himself and his E-Cat.

Though I only finished HS I am one of the few open minded thinkers in my social group that can think dynamically out side of the box. (At least in certain areas.)

Peace.

Chris I

Degree in physics from the university of Padova. Much like a masters, with a graduation thesis. Chose courses mainly in theoretical particle physics and GR with basics of cosmology, thesis on hadronic processes at high collision energies (in short, about the pomeron).

Not long after graduating, I quit trying to understand all those wierd things I wrote in my thesis, cut my hair and went looking for a job. Main occupation has been software development.

K

MSc Electromechanics.

Warthog

PhD Chemist (Analytical major with nuclear minor). I picked that choice of major/minor because at that time, neutron activation was THE most sensitive way to do elemental analysis. Forty years in the private sector, twenty at one of the world’s largest chemical companies, and twenty more (and still counting) at a small high-tech instrument design firm. Twenty-six patents (and still counting…new one to be submitted shortly), a smaller number of refereed papers (the private sector doesn’t care all that much about “publish or perish). Various awards for technology development.

Mikey

BSc in Process Engineereing, University of Trinidad and Tobago. 24 years old, one publication in an international journal. Youngest ever winner of my university’s annual business plan competition (100k prize). Led me to starting up 2 companies, which I am presently the CEO of.

georgehants

Principia Scientifica International
Mar 26
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
Written by H. Schreuder & J. O’Sullivan
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere.
NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html#.UVYwRz4bXF4.facebook

Peter Roe

If this work is confirmed, then it should be the end of the whole AGW bandwagon. Should be, but of course, won’t.

georgehants

A couple of minor points —
If this is the first study to —-
“shed light on Earth’s temperature patterns over the past two millennia.”
— then what the hell are all the other reports about.
What happened to all the pollution up to 2000, apparently it saved us from a global cooling that could have led to a new ice-age.
—-
Climate change
End of 20th century broke global cooling trend.
April 21, 2013 – 20:00
A groundbreaking study from the University of Bern has for the first time shed light on Earth’s temperature patterns over the past two millennia. After a long cooling trend, 1971 to 2000 was found to be the warmest period in 1,400 years.http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/science_technology/End_of_20th_century_broke_global_cooling_trend.html?cid=35576860

GreenWin

I recall CO2 levels during both Cambrian (massive explosion of fauna) and Devonian (explosion of flora) estimated as much as 7,000 – 10,000ppm. Though the sun was probably 25% dimmer in these era, there was no runaway thermal effect. That’s 20x current CO2 levels. And the atmosphere fertilized floral growth. Go figure.

Peter Roe

You’ve occasionally intimated that you are ‘getting on a bit’ GW, but I had no idea that you went that far back. Personally I am too young to remember much of the early Holocene.

http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

About 5% dimmer I think. There is a so-called Walker-Hays-Kasting thermostat mechanism for CO2 which works for over million year timescale or so: warmer equator causes enhanced weathering of carbonate rocks and consequent inorganic sedimentation of CO2 (e.g., CaO+CO2 -> CaCO3). This mechanism tends to keep equatorial temperature constant against solar illumination and other variations. When sun was dimmmer, the equilibrium CO2 value was higher.

GreenWin

Yes, Peter, the vessel is (relatively) new, but the animate source is ancient.

Thanks Pekka, you are far better qualified to analyze solar influences and certainly are aware of Svensmark’s work and the CERN CLOUD studies.

Wonderful how the Cambrian explosion and the Burgess shale’s can be shoehorned so well into a Evolutionary theory requiring incremental changes over long periods of time.
—-
Published on 31 Jan 2013
Another Cambrian Discovery Discredits Evolutionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD67DivVA5s

http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

This website, principia-scientific.org, has completely misunderstood the NASA report which is links to. The NASA report is about the upper atmosphere where indeed CO2 and other infrared-coupled molecules act as coolants. Greenhouse gases cause warming of the lower atmosphere and cooling of the upper atmosphere. For example some layers of Venus’ upper atmosphere are colder than the corresponding layers at Earth, despite Sun’s vicinity and despite hot conditions on the surface.

There seems to be a paid disinformation campaign going on against mainstream climate science and this website might be part of it. A few years ago mainstream climate scientists mounted a partially dirty countercampaign on which they got caught.

georgehants

Pekka, where will I find the definitive research giving the interaction of the cooling upper atmosphere against the warming lower atmosphere.
With this equation, taking into account the jet streams and storm driven turbulence etc. we should have an answer to the net effect of CO2 pollution disregarding the other hundred biasing effects.

It seems to say that there will be a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere only but as you say this (maybe) important paper is to be kept secret from the un-initiated.

http://wermenh.com/climate Ric Werme

This is way off topic – I’ll just make a couple points and leave it at that. “Jet streams and storm driven turbulence” are mostly tropospheric effect and rarely push into the stratosphere.

When they refer to upper atmosphere, they are referring to above the stratosphere. Whatever is the story behind all this it’s not a major player in the story. We have plenty of ill-understood phenomena below the stratosphere to keep the science unsettled.

LB

Thanks Pekka ! 🙂
It’s always a Joy reading your posts. Being able to read and understand what was written is an art on the decline…

LCD

yeah Pekka thanks for clearing that up. Saves time.

HHiram

Whatever moron wrote the article is too poorly informed to understand the NASA report, which is about the role that CO2 and other gases play in the UPPER atmosphere.

Why am I not surprised the GeorgeHants is once again using the LENR discussion board as his own personal soapbox to peddle anti-science nonsense and climate change denial conspiracy theory garbage?

Oh, and unlike GeorgeHants, I have happen to have an MS in environmental science and a PhD in geography…

georgehants

HHiram , your comment is more like an uneducated ruffian than that of qualified scientist.
To answer your points.
– You are quite free to debate any points I make, yes this is a soap box that unfortunate for those thinking a qualification in how to light a bunson burner allows them to not have to debate using Evidence is a bit of a shock.
With all your meaningless qualifications as only the ability to open-mindedly and unbiasedly debate Evidence would show your knowledge, you seem to have omitted to give your Evidence against my posts, that you wrongly interpret as “anti-science.”
Can I invite you to make a point that is debatable and fore-go your apparently emotional rejection of debate.

LCD

Bit harsh on George but, george you should do a bit more research on things yourself.. In this case consult the original article. A growing number of websites seem to repost articles that do not explain the original article well.

georgehants

LCD, I will not take time and I am not qualified to research all links that I put up and I feel quite certain that the knowledgeable people on page will, as should be, give the necessary analysis.
They are put there purely as information for discussion.
Your comment is illogical in that if followed then almost no links would appear on page especially about Cold Fusion.

LCD

do what you will, but then don’t be surprised when people criticize you.

Cat Jonessen

PhD. in Mathematics.

And to Georgehants, I know personally many PhD’s in math and physics who have not been able to find a career in research. Without an academic position (which is very hard to get) it is rough going finding a stable career in hard sciences. A good bricklayer can always find work in almost any town, but check the job listings for particle physicist and see what you find. To make matters worse, many PhD’s are able to get a post-doctoral position only to find themselves unemployed 3 years later (often with young families by then). I know a particle physics PhD slinging code for a database company, a nuclear physics PhD working for a management company. A math PhD doing headhunting for hi-tech, another managing in software, several doing finance, several more working in advertising, and more. Granted this is not “manual labor”, but after dedicating 8-10 (poorly paid) years of your life post-university to research, and then realizing it was a waste, is not so wonderful.

It is easy to bad-mouth “hopeless scientists” when you don’t know what you are talking about. Most “hopeless scientists” don’t get through grad school. Many very good scientists end up leaving science because there are no jobs.

georgehants

Cat Jonessen, you say —–
“It is easy to bad-mouth “hopeless scientists” when you don’t know what you are talking about.”
I say, please do not give made-up opinions, I know perfectly well what I am talking about as does anybody who follows the science of Cold Fusion or many other subjects where incompetent and corrupt science is rife.
Question for you —-
Are you saying the opinion giving scientists denying Cold Fusion and many subjects by disregarding Evidence are not incompetent, corrupt or as I said “Hopeless” and should be removed.
Your other points are not describing “hopeless” scientists but the incompetent science administration that allows these “good” people to be unemployed.

Cat Jonessen

georgehants:

Yes, let’s start sacking scientists who are slow to embrace new ideas that appear to violate the established theories of physics. There is however the sticky issue of deciding who should be sacked. Perhaps the U.N. could appoint you to form a commission of free and logical thinkers like yourself, uncluttered by the biases of formal training to decide who should be sacked and who should be able to keep doing research. You could meet monthly to read up a bit on the internet and form a list of those deemed to be incompetent. In rare cases where it isn’t clear if they are incompetent from reading blogs and chat boards, you could just have a short conversation with them and ask them about UFOs or something. Really, it would be simple. It would usher in a new age of focused science.

Having scientists decide which science they want to pursue has clearly failed us. Technology hasn’t progressed since the early 1900s. It is time to clean house.

georgehants

Cat Jonessen, You do not seem to be able to admit the failings of science and suggest a sensible path forward.
I am surprised at your answer as I usually have great respect for the logical thinking of mathematicians.
Questions please —
-What do you think should be done about the UFO phenomenon.

remiandre

100% agree

georgehants

remiandre, could you also answer my question to Cat Jonessen.
Thank you

georgehants

Allowing that these highly qualified scientists could have gone off to read about Cold Fusion in a Premier Journal, it is amazing how they give an opinion based apparently on nothing but their belief that a “qualification” allows them to proclaim any illogical view, and then disappear into the academic clouds without answering a simple question, I am impressed.

remiandre

I think you’re both right. Young scientists must fight hard to get a career in science. Also, when they do they do not take the risk of losing everything by saying the opposite of what the prevailing dogma says.
Regarding established scientists, I think there are two main types of reasons explaining why they take position on LENR even without seriously reading a paper on the subject.
There are conscious and unconscious reasons. Among the conscious reasons I would put aware compliance (fear of displeasing the group of his colleagues), fear of ridicule, greed (especially in private research).
The main unconscious reason is called “cognitive dissonance.” This is a psychological process to safeguard the integrity of the psyche when too disturbing information comes to consciousness. Most people simply repress the information and scientists are not exempt from this rule.

And of course there is also the stupidity and narrow-mindedness.

Note that most of the promoters of LENR are not researchers but entrepreneurs. The scholars involved are old scientists who no longer have anything to lose.

georgehants

remiandre, thank you, may I ask what do you think should be done to improve these terrible faults that seem to be so prevalent and damaging to science.

remiandre

Difficult question. I think the work of the team of MLMP is an example of the approach that universities should follow. Opening blogs to citizens in order to transform research in participatory research would be a good starting point : it avoids the problem of compliance and ridiculous as the ideas do not come from researchers themselves. Academics would play a moderating role. Social pressure would be exerted from the outside to the research team. Thus, if a researcher refused a manipulation without a valid reason he would be discredited…
Paraphrasing Georges Clemenceau who said “War is a too serious matter to be entrusted to the military,” I would say that science is too important to be entrusted to scientists.

georgehants

In my humble opinion combined with your previous comment, one of the most honest, constructive and intelligent statements one could read on the scientific dilemma.
I would add that Science is to important to be left to the establishment, or politicians, or capitalism, all of whom have shown themselves to be incapable or unwilling to lead progress for the good of humanity.

remiandre

Thank you.

Iggy Dalrymple

With the advent of free courses on the internet, I predict a huge increase in self-taught scientists. Khan Academy offers over 3,000 free courses. MIT offers many free courses. Formal higher education is the latest bubble, ready to bust. Formal higher education is overrated, except for professionals. Formal education can shackle the mind. Of my high-school mates, the most financially successful have no college degree.

Some day, diplomas will not matter. The self-taught will take and pass a credential exam, and that will suffice.

Higher education has evolved into a racket for the benefit of the administrators. Many universities have twice the number of non-teachers as teachers.

AstralProjectee

I would agree, but once cold fusion comes into play I am guessing that the preferred way to learn will still be brick and mortar buildings. I mean with Cold Fusion we can make all the schools we want cheaply more and more. But there will always be benefits for online learning. Especially in other countries until they too have very well off and doing very good, and money is not an issue.

Peace.

Al S

With an abundance of free energy, people will do what they love, what turns them on, and there will be an explosion of new thought, new development, and new Freedom! You all here are the vanguard of this, and it is my pleasure to be a witness to these developments. I’ll not be able to assist in making LENR the reality it will be (no background) but I’ll be reaping the benefits of it, for that I’m sure, just as I am astounded at the enthusiasm herein displayed, making it a reality. I cobbled together a BS in general studies, and use intuitive analysis as a measure of truth, and here is where I find lots of it, truth that is!

remiandre

I have a master’s degree in nuclear physics and that’s why I find LENR so interesting !

LCD

So what’s your favorite theory?

georgehants

Failed my 11+ and went to secondary school where I learnt almost nothing.
Thankfully I have no qualifications to get in the way of clear and unbiased thinking.
The examples of reading most scientists efforts at Logic, or common sense leads me to the conclusion that if these people spent some time in the real World of self-employed business etc. where a wrong decision leads to a personal loss instead of just losing the taxpayers cash etc, then they might wake-up a little bit.

georgehants

My above post showing my qualifications, they are so bad it has gone to moderation. Ha.
——
In the real World a guy comes on a building site and says I am a bricklayer, nobody cares about his qualifications they will just say o.k. build me a wall.
Unlike science degrees etc. that can be gained by copying or just writing any establishment rubbish on Global Warming, this guy actually has a useful talent that after an hour can be checked for Truth.
If his wall is good he will be praised and hired if it is bad he will be sent off down the road.
How many hopeless scientists with a degree etc. are removed and sent back to the job centre to find more appropriate work in manual labour for example.

Hal

+1….As a carpenter who happens to have 3 totally useless diplomas, which were mostly done for fun not career prospects. There are so many people earning huge salaries because they can pass exams, but are otherwise totally incompetent in their jobs it depresses me every day.

Lukedc

After just paying my good friend to utilise his carpentry skills at my house, I can verify that the 4 years he spent getting paid to do his apprenticeship has put him in better stead than the 4 years I wasted at university racking up 30k debt and the subsequent 6 industry recognised certs.

georgehants

Principia Scientifica International
Mar 26
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
Written by H. Schreuder & J. O’Sullivan
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere.
NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html#.UVYwRz4bXF4.facebook

georgehants

Sunday, April 21, 2013
LENR and Muon Catalyzed Fusion
Reading about low energy nuclear reactions, (LENR), I came across several theoretical references to protons capturing heavy electrons and then participating in nuclear reactions as a result. The heavy electron, because it sits in a much tighter orbit around a proton, serves to shield the proton’s positive charge from other unsuspecting nuclei until the proton has crept in close enough to fuse with them via the strong force. In modern day LENR parlance, it is speculated that these sufficiently heavy electrons exist in materials, (condensed matter), as a result of Bloch oscillations, (more on these later), leading to a higher effective electron mass.http://copaseticflow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/lenr-and-muon-catalyzed-fusion.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Dave, nothing wrong with qualifications if the people with them are aware of their extreme limitations in most areas and do not give opinion on their own subjects that contradicts Evidence.
If there is not enough Evidence for a temporary conclusion then only Research will lead toward a possible answer and of course this answer could hide a deeper answer beyond.
One can easily tell an incompetent scientist by asking them, for example, what is your scientific view on the UFO phenomenon.
There of course is only one logical and acceptable scientific answer —-
Research, Research, Research.
Any opinions except as bar-room chatter are irrelevant, except a personal report that they have or have not seen one.
The crazy’s who try to say that Mr. Rossi is not a Cold Fusion scientist because he does not have an appropriate qualification are clearly living in a very queer World.

http://www.rossifocardifusion.com John De Herrera

georgehants
“what is your scientific view on the UFO phenomenon”
Very good test question. Everything I learned in school, taught that UFOs were nonsense. However, in Alamosa Co., three of my brothers saw a UFO, very low at night. Mother saw one UFO land close by Grandpa’s ranch at night, Grandmother and cousins saw two close UFOs at night, my younger brother and I saw a UFO app. 30-40 feet away, 10 feet above ground, daylight hours – so, the real world taught me: UFOs are real and everything taught at school by educated teachers is incorrect. So, Skeptics opinions on cold fusion and UFOs, and many other things, is pure bu****it. jdh

georgehants

John, UFO’s are either —
-Psychological and should be of great interest to medical science.
Unlikely because of radar returns and multiple witnesses etc.
-Material, in which case of much interest to science.
-Beyond known science, in which case of much interest to science.
The one certain thing is that they are one of the above and should be Researched.
Please refer to my below link.
Anybody who simply denies such things is certainly no able scientist.
—–
COMETA was a high-level French UFO study organisation from the late 1990s, composed of high-ranking officers and officials, some having held command posts in the armed forces and aerospace industry. The name “COMETA” in English stands for “Committee for in-depth studies.” The study was carried out over several years by an independent group of mostly former “auditors” at the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defence, or IHEDN, a high-level French military think-tank, and by various other experts.
The group was responsible for the ‘COMETA Report’ (1999) on UFOs and their possible implications for defence in France. The report concluded that about 5% of the UFO cases they studied were utterly inexplicable and the best hypothesis to explain them was the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH). The authors also accused the United States government of engaging in a massive cover-up of the evidence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMETA

http://www.rossifocardifusion.com John De Herrera

georgehants – thank you for this information, I will check it out.
I prefer to take a STRONG STAND to defend cold fusion,UFOs, ghosts, apparitions, and other things Skeptics call ‘nonsense’. I worked for 60 years with Dr. Hynek and other scientists investigating UFOs.
“-Material, and of interest to science”
They are ‘material’ fourth state of matter, intelligently controlled and although normally ‘balls of light’, capable of forming ‘craft’ ‘creatures’ and human like ‘entities’. jdh

Iggy Dalrymple

I had a friend (lost contact with him) who claimed multiple abductions by aliens. I can’t say I believe his tales, but I believe that he believes them. I attended a lecture of his where he translated alien writing. When I last heard from him he was working on ocean wave generated power in the Cape Canaveral area.
His book:http://www.amazon.com/ET-Beings-John-Zarr/dp/1594533253

Lukedc

BSc computers.
But will be definitely making the career change as soon as it is proven beyond a doubt that its all go! I may be late 30’s but I want to be a part of the future.

http://www.shake-speares-bible.com psi

I have a doctorate in literary studies and a longtime interest in the history of ideas and the circumstances of paradigm shifts. Thus, although unprepared to evaluate technical arguments related to the e-cat, I bring to the discussion a long experience with intellectual controversies of one sort or another. I appreciate the opportunity to challenge my mind by trying to understand, at least at a layperson’s level, the technical questions posed by the development of LENR technology. There is no doubt in my mind that the phenomenon is real and I’m generally optimistic about Rossi’s ability to deliver — time will shortly tell if this optimism is justified.

Roger Bird

Paradigm shifts, I like it. Paradigm shifts or what I call a change in perspective is my favorite subject. They don’t teach that in college. But I have been fascinated with this from about 5 years old on. I became fascinated with the fact that the world looked differently from one eye rather than the other eye. And I would close one eye and look at the world, and then the other eye. And as I got older, I discovered that the same thing applies to thoughts and mental perspectives. So, when I am talking to conservatives, say, I will bring up a liberal idea, and they will hate me for it, and vice versa. Or I try to see the other guys viewpoint or I try to see both sides to an issue.

http://www.shake-speares-bible.com psi

Hi Roger. For me the question is whether thinking about a controversy from this point of view, even absent specialized knowledge about the subject, one can make an informed decision about which controversies are likely to generate real as opposed to illusory paradigm shifts. I like to pay attention to the terms of the discussion and see who is playing fair and who is not. My assumption is that more often than not those who are “playing fair” are probably right. Of course, it can sometimes be very hard to see this, and in the heat of argument everyone sometimes takes shortcuts – but as a generalization, one can form some preliminary judgments.

The following are my favorite contemporary debates in which I see the underdogs likely to be substantially or wholly correct:

1) Shakespeare. Plays definitely not written by the incumbent from Stratford. Smart money on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. This is my personal area of expertise and the only one of these topics in which I have any special claim to knowledge, having published some 16+ peer reviewed articles related to the topic and many more in less formal contexts;

2) Anthropogenic Global Warming – against all my prior training and environmentalist ethic (which I still retain), I’ve come to think of this as largely a joke resulting from some very poor science and a corrupted do-gooder mentality;

3) LENR – no need to elaborate in this context;

4) Electric Universe Theory – I don’t go along with all elements of this, but I would say that I’m willing to bet that standard cosmography has as at least as much to learn from the proponents of this paradigm as visa-versa.

Really enjoy reading both admin and comments here. Keep up the great work – and despite having two advanced degrees, I agree with much of the skepticism expressed here about the limitations of higher education. At Coppin State we try to do better than average.

GreenWin

Psi, I am fascinated. To what if any credence do you give to Christopher Marlowe as a Shakespearean author? And, might you steer me to one or more of your papers??

http://www.shake-speares-bible.com psi

Hi Greenwin,

I’m pretty confident for various reasons that it was not Christopher Marlowe – among them being that he died in 1592, and the argument that his death was faked (it *was* strange and possibly an assassination, but that’s a different matter) and that he survived another 10-20 years has never been successfully articulated. Also his style is markedly different. There are a lot of parallel phrases, suggesting that the two writers were closely associated in the late 1580s. Thanks for the question!

Peter Roe

I like the Earl of Oxford theory, but if it is mentioned to my wife (MA hons., Eng Lit & Classical Studies) she goes a strange colour and starts to wave her arms around a lot.

Peter, your wife is very typical of people from that educational background on this topic. You don’t need to tell her this – but she’s been brainwashed. You might see if you can interest her in this recent documentary: http://firstfoliopictures.com/film. I would bet there’s a 50-50 chance at least that she might change her mind. I was interviewed extensively for the documentary.

Cheers,

PSI

GreenWin

psi, if you get this note, I looked at the preview of the flick – fantastic. I will buy the download as I have always been intrigued by this tale. And it being Will’s b-day yesterday, I discovered his (or author’s) works are far and away the most performed on stage, film, readings, etc. of any author of any era.

You have a fascinating area of expertise!

http://www.shake-speares-bible.com psi

Hey Greenwin, happy to have turned you on. Having studied this as a topic in intellectual history for over twenty years, I can confidently state that this is a (very slow moving sometimes!) paradigm shift in action….so stay tuned and don’t drink the cool-aid! : )

GreenWin

psi, if you get this note, I looked at the preview of the flick – fantastic. I will buy the download as I have always been intrigued by this tale. And it being Will’s b-day yesterday, I discovered his (author’s) works are far and away the most performed on stage, film, readings, etc. of any author of any era.

You have a fascinating area of expertise!

Chris the 2nd

I don’t have a degree, it wasn’t necessary for my career choice and so would have been a poor investment, so high school level educated. However that’s only half the story with the type of work I do where it’s all about experience.

Roger Bird

Chris, if you love learning, then you are one of us and are an educated person. The dark side of a college degree can be that one becomes brainwashed, particularly in liberal arts courses, medicine, etc. But in engineering and science courses, not so much.

Iggy Dalrymple

“Education is what is left after you’ve forgotten everything you’ve learned.” – Albert Einstein

KD

From J-O-N-P
Giuseppe
Dear Andrea,
Some one around says that you, as italian, are waiting for an Italy stable government to autorize third party report.
Please, retreat from this intention, may be the end of E-Cat.
Nicely, Giuseppe.

Andrea Rossi
“http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802&cpage=3” \l “comment-681569”
Dear Giuseppe:
Please do not listen to these guys: what they say is one of the biggest stupidity I have heard of in these last weeks. Our company ( Leonardo Corp) is a USA company, our Partner is a USA Company, our business is mainly developed in the USA and in Europe our strategy in the short term is a development mainly in Sweden, where we are putting strong bases. The Government of Italy has absolutely nothing to do with us, whatever it is or it will be. We, as Leonardo Corporation, will maintain in Italy only a R&D Center, in Ferrara. The Third Indipendent Party Report, as I explained many times, for the fact that is “indipendent” does not depend on me, does not depend on me the content, does not depend on me the date of the publication, does not depend on me where it will be published. One only thing is pretty sure, because the Professors have been adamant about this: it will be published. I imagine ( and underline IMAGINE) that, since the test is finished on the 23rd of March, 2-3 weeks have been necessary to write the report, so the report should be not far from being ready; then there is the reviewing time, I have not idea of the time it takes. I want not absolutely to disturb the Professors contacting them, that would not be deontologically correct. This very superficial demand of a quick publication of this Report is a ripercussion of the fact that in the LENR field it is the first time that an industrial module is examined by a Third Indipendent Party, and there is not experience of the necessary timeframes. Think to all the other fields of Physics, and compare: you will see that the time between a test and the publication of a third indipendent party takes minimum a month, maximum several months.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Sam

Nemo propheta in patria.

Shane D.

Confusing like most everything Rossi. This “independent study” started 10 months ago, I think, and it all seemed so clear back then. The report would be out soon. Then maybe not, then maybe so, then there were this many scientists from this many universities, oh no -there are this many, they are back doing another run but the report to be out soon, no it’s not. Up and down, round and round we go.

Now I see again that the “report should be out soon”… OK.

Rossi does make it hard for his fans to support him.

I will say this: after all his confusing antics I do think there will be something published near term (take your pick as to what that means), because he does have a history of coming through when he puts this much emphasis on a subject.

It may not be exactly as he has led us to believe, maybe so, but I predict there will be something coming soon.

If this all turns out as we hope, history will note it as one of the most bizarre introductions of a revolutionary technology ever.

Peter Roe

Agreed.

Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.

And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only half-way up,
They were neither up nor down.

Freethinker

+1
🙂

captain

An example of Rossi’s answers?

Bernie Koppenhofer
April 21st, 2013 at 12:45 AM

Dr. Rossi: For the last two plus years you have steadfastly held to the E-cat producing no more than a COP of six. With your new mouse cat are you willing to say the COP can go higher than six? Thanks

Andrea Rossi
April 21st, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
Not impossible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

That means almost … nothing. If it’s a secret, it’s secret, tired to repeat that the COP could be scaled ‘easily’ at will. IMO as i’ve mentioned other times, say much more than COP20, deemed easily up to 40-50. But it’s not the time, now!
What above is my opinion as per Rossi’s interviews during recent years (in italian).

http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

Of course Rossi doesn’t give a COP estimate now, because measuring the COP is the 3rd party’s task. I think the answer he gave now is about the only logical one, under the circumstances.

Omega Z

Pekka

To many get to tied up with the COP factor.
I believe you posted about this once.

Once you reach a certain COP you start getting diminishing returns. COP between 30 & 40 will be more then good.

Diminishing Returns going
From 20 to 40 only reduces input by 50%
From 40 to 80 only reduces input by an additional 50%

So pretty much once you reach COP>40, 1 should move on unless Infinite is within reach.

GreenWin

Any more bizarre than the introduction of fire to primitive man by lightning bolt??

paul bennett

It might be interesting to know what subjects the degrees are in. Are we mostly arts or sciences?

Peter Roe

BSc microbiology (science for mathematical illiterates).

timycelyn

PhD in Chemistry – pretty much all of which I have forgotten. One of my occasional nightmares is to suddenly find myself in a finals exam setting and hearing the invigilator say with sadistic pleasure: “You can turn your papers over…now…”

But the PhD did teach me how to think, reason, deal with self doubt and all the rest of that useful stuff. Gave me a radar for “something’s not right” although the hard school of life increased the sensitivity of that particular trait a lot.

Not exactly statistically significant but of those so far ‘declared’ I make that 9 qualified in sciences and 4 in arts/humanities (Roger seems to have feet in both camps so he’s counted twice), i.e., roughly 2 to 1.

GreenWin

I wonder though, with the pace at which technology moves today, can even recent graduates in science be aware of more than their very specific niche? Where the history and arts students have a foundation largely immoveable, the scientist must constantly chase the technology rabbit.

It appears soon it may lead them down the rabbit hole.

Peter Roe

Fortunately (from this POV) the material covered in many science degrees is (or at least, was) quite broadly based and hardly ‘cutting edge’ when it is taught – most of my textbooks of the time had a distictly musty smell about them. Only about 50% of the course I took was concerned with my chosen specialisation – the rest was the chemistry, bichemistry, maths, physics etc. that was required in order to fully understand the biology part.

Of course I’ve forgotten most of it after more than 40 years, but I was gratified a few years back to discover that I could remember enough (if necessary, quickly refreshed on Google!) to actually help out my daughter via email while she was at uni doing her degree in biology.

Peter Roe

P.S. With further declarations the balance has definitely shifted heavily towards science qualifications.

Roger Bird

I have a BA in psychology, (I know, my bad.) a BA in philosophy (slightly better), and an AS in electronics technology (much better). So, should I vote 2.5 times, 2 times, 1 time, or just 1/2 of a time?

Frank is right. It is a lifetime of loving learning that counts. And I have that.

GreenWin

Roger, theoretical question: if a flip flop circuit refuses to change state, is it merely recalcitrant, or is there some ontological principle at work?